It’s funny what one can fish out from the photo archive sometimes. Absolutely by accident I came across the photos from my studio photo shoot 7 years ago. That was my one and only time I shot in a studio with all the fancy strobes and stuff. My wife’s friend who is a professional photographer now and was studying back then wanted to have a photo shoot with my wife. Out of the blue, I suggested to rent a studio for a couple of hours and she (friend) agreed. So basically I piggybacked into the studio for no particular reason but curiosity.

My wife’s friend who is a professional photographer now and was only studying back then wanted to have a photo shoot with my wife. Out of the blue, I suggested to rent a studio for a couple of hours and she (the friend) agreed. So basically I piggybacked into the studio for no particular reason but curiosity.

While most of the photos are either my wife’s friend work or family archive, I’ve found this picture to show. Being a “bad” frame as you can see because the flash didn’t fire, it came out as a silhouette in warm tones and now I kinda like it.

The funny thing I mentioned in the beginning is that while looking at those studio photos I realize what fun working in a studio can be. Since that occasion, I hardly ever thought of doing this again. Only in the context of film photography, but considering all the fuss with flash syncing and film speeds, and inability to try and check the settings, I’m not sure I’ll get there soon.

Some time ago I contacted a guy who runs Emulsive.org website asking how I could contribute to the community. All I could think about was to translate an article or write some kind of film review or my impressions of film photography or something like that. Hardly had I expected what will come out of this.

Last week my feature article went live and it’s about a photo series called “Lonely” that you can also find on my website here.

Please feel free to check out the article and the series, and leave comments there or here if you like.

This portrait of my son became one of my favourite family photos straight away, but the irony here is that it was shot by accident. I couldn’t remember taking it and later I realised it was one of the first “technical” frames in a new roll. I’ll allow myself a bit of old-sock rambling and say that this photo would never happen if I used my digital camera. No need to shoot photos in order to advance the film, thus no accidental pictures like this.

As I’ve mentioned already here or on social media, I’ve got myself a 100 ft roll of Kodak Tri-X 400 and now all of my 35mm cameras – which is not many – are loaded with it. Before the latest batch, the results were so-so to my taste. A puzzling mixture of failed expectations and “I’m open to whatever develops from this”. On one hand, I was a little bit upset about the outcome in terms of tonality, overall quality and where the hack that famous grain is anyway! On the other hand, I’ve never shot Tri-X before and adding a new developer to the workflow I was curious to see how it compares to what I had.

That was before I developed another roll of Tri-X this weekend. Shot on my Nikon F3 with the 50mm f/1.8 lens, the photos came out so great I wanted to print some of them while looking at the scanner previews. I don’t post pictures of my family often, but this time I’ve included one of my son drawing just because I like the tones, shadows and grain so much.

Now I see why this film is so acclaimed and praised. I have also learned once again how important it is for the final result to use film appropriately. By this, I mean how film works in different light situations. With the box speed of ISO 400, I’m a bit struggling to get great results outside in the sun. The pictures have blown highlights, so ND filter maybe?

If you have any advice on that, I’ll be glad to hear. Meanwhile, I hope you enjoy the photos.